The Tribune

Bahamians have enough difficulties in their daily lives without watching the House of Assembly become another place where an argument gets more attention than the work that needs doing.

The confrontation involving Long Island MP Dr Andre Rollins and Speaker Patricia Deveaux should leave every member reflecting on what the public expects of them. People send representatives to Parliament to ask difficult questions, examine legislation and pursue solutions. They are entitled to expect those representatives to remain focused even when tempers rise.

The dispute began over the handling of question time and escalated to the Speaker ordering Dr Rollins’ removal after he called her a disgrace. A disagreement about parliamentary procedure became a personal confrontation, drawing attention away from the business before the House.

Dr Rollins’ subsequent explanation offers a better starting point for the conversation. He said he had not expected his colleagues to leave the chamber and follow him, because he understood that the Opposition leader shared his view that the debates taking place were more important than his absence.

That principle should have guided the encounter from the beginning. The work of Parliament is bigger than any member, any confrontation and any opportunity to demonstrate party solidarity.

Remaining in the chamber to represent constituents should never be treated as a failure of loyalty to a colleague. Opposition members have responsibilities that continue when one of their number is ordered out. Their constituents still deserve to have legislation scrutinised, concerns raised and ministers questioned. Walking away can surrender the very opportunity they were elected to exercise.

But keeping Parliament focused also requires acknowledging that question time is part of the people’s business. It should not be dismissed as an inconvenience simply because the questions may be uncomfortable or the Opposition lacks the numbers to prevail in a vote. A parliamentary majority gives a government the ability to advance its programme; it does not remove the public’s need for answers.

Disputes about the rules should be settled through clear rulings, consistent practice and proper avenues for challenge. Members should understand the basis of a decision, and the public watching should be able to follow it. The Speaker has a responsibility to maintain order while ensuring that the chamber remains a place where legitimate scrutiny can occur.

Dr Rollins, in turn, must recognise that a forceful argument loses ground when it becomes a personal insult. A member can be persistent, outspoken and uncompromising without allowing frustration to take control. The ability to remain effective under pressure is part of the job.

For a family struggling with electricity bills, a patient awaiting treatment or a business owner trying to keep staff employed, the measure of a parliamentary sitting is unlikely to be who delivered the sharpest rebuke. They want to know whether anyone advanced their concerns and what will happen next.

There is room for passion in that work. Indeed, the public should expect it. What serves them poorly is the point at which personalities consume the time and attention that should be devoted to their circumstances.

The House should resolve the procedural disagreement that prompted this confrontation and establish a clear understanding of how question time will be handled. Members on both sides should then get on with their responsibilities, without turning the episode into days of competing claims about who embarrassed whom.

Dr Rollins has said the debates were more important than his absence. He is right about the priority. The challenge for him, his colleagues and the Speaker is to conduct themselves in a way that keeps that priority in view.

The people’s business cannot keep waiting for the people’s representatives to finish arguing about themselves